The 14th Amendment – Equal Protection Explained

I am so sick and tired of people who just can’t grasp the 14th Amendment, but think they are experts, because they heard something on a liberal rag like Huffington Post. Let’s see if I can help clear things up a bit regarding the most controversial parts of the 14th Amendment. First, I would like to make it clear that the 14th Amendment was never even legally ratified. There is plenty of information already out there on this, so it’s not necessary for me to go into it. Start here: There is No 14th Amendment!

What must be understood with crystal clarity about the 14th Amendment, Section 1 is that NONE of it prohibits Congress from violating equal protection. It applies solely to the states. The 14th Amendment is designed to rip power from the states and give it to the federal government. This is why the states would not vote to ratify it and didn’t. It takes states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution: 75% of the States… unless Congress illegally stops them from voting.

Now, for the purpose of the rest of this post, I will work with the assumption that the 14th Amendment is valid, since I’m not going to be able to convince anyone in state governments otherwise. So, let’s say that I would love to see the 14th Amendment repealed. It is a mess. People of rudimentary intelligence can’t understand it and are easily duped into believe it says things it doesn’t. There is nothing beneficial about it and every court ruling based on it ends up being destructive to our nation.

Let’s start with the claim that liberals and even dime store conservatives make, which is that the 14th Amendment repeals the 10th Amendment. This claim is made because the 14th Amendment says, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” You have to really try hard to warp this into meaning what liberals think it means. They think states can’t make any laws that the federal government can’t make, based on this. For instance, the 1st Amendment protects certain freedoms from Congress, but what they don’t teach us in schools is that it doesn’t protect those freedoms from states. As a matter of fact, the 1st Amendment acted to protect state religions from Congress. So, liberals think that if a state passes a law to abridge the privileges in the 1st Amendment, they violate the 14th Amendment now. Except that the 1st Amendment grants no privileges, it only limits Congress. It’s purpose isn’t to grant anything. It’s purpose is to protect us from Congress. States aren’t violating the directive (Congress shall make no laws) of the 1st Amendment in any way by requiring a permit to peaceably assemble.

Congress is limited by the 10th Amendment and all powers that are not specified to Congress in the Constitution are left to the people or the States. If liberals were right and the 14th Amendment repealed the 10th, then how could any state pass any law, ever? It was my privilege to smoke in bars. But we have liberal smoking bans everywhere now. But wait! I thought the 14th said, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States?” They are making and enforcing laws against my privileges every day. You don’t hear a peep out of liberals when states pass 22,000 unconstitutional gun control laws. Gun control laws abridge my privileges and RIGHTS more than any other laws. The 2nd Amendment even says that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!

I have already covered the false claim that the 14th Amendment gives us anchor babies here: The 14th Amendment Doesn’t Grant Citizenship to the Children of Illegal Aliens. I have also shown how The 14th Amendment, requires Hillary Clinton to have a 2/3s approval of Congress to even be allowed to run for President here: Arrest Hillary Clinton Now! That’s a fun topic that you don’t hear liberals bringing up the 14th Amendment about. I don’t need to go into those subjects in detail again, because I just gave you the links!

Moving on to the latest abuse of the 14th Amendment in order for the Supreme Court to throw out the laws of states. Liberals are hanging their hats on the Equal Protection Clause in the gay marriage issue. The equal protection clause is in the same sentence they think repeals the 10th Amendment, so here is the entire sentence. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Keep in mind that liberals do not want to discuss the depriving of liberty part with regard to Kim Davis, or her equal protection under the law, which is a legitimate point, since she actually followed the law that was legislated.

Equal protection of the law… what is it? Well, it’s not equal rights. It’s not equal protection of rights. It’s not equal anything at a federal level, as it states, “no State shall…” Equal protection of the law is not a directive on how to write laws. It is a directive of how to apply laws. Laws just are what they are. We all have to follow them even if they seem unfair. Even Cornell University, the “go to” source for bad information on the Constitution, gets it partially right. They say, “The equal protection clause is not intended to provide ‘equality’ among individuals or classes but only ‘equal application’ of the laws.” Well, what does this mean? It means that if a state law says that marriage is between a man and a woman, then we all live under that same law equally. We all obey it equally. We can all marry someone of the opposite sex equally. The only thing stopping us is finding someone who can put up with us!

What equal protection of the law is really supposed to ensure is that if someone commits a crime, they aren’t treated differently based on their station in life. A Wall Street banker and a janitor should face the same justice. That goes for Senators and Presidents too!

Marriage isn’t a right. Redefining marriage isn’t an equal protection of the law. The Supreme Court decision to throw out marriage laws in the majority of our states was unconstitutional. Nowhere does the Constitution say that if courts think a law is unfair or doesn’t apply to everyone equally, they can throw them out. It doesn’t say it in Article 3, which enumerates every single power the courts have and it doesn’t say it in the 14th Amendment. States should nullify this Supreme Court decision by ignoring it. But they won’t, so there is something everyone needs to understand about this Supreme Court decision. They determined that equal protection of the law means that you can marry whoever you love. If you love both your dad and your brother, let the wedding bells ring! They drew no line in the sand and neither do liberals. Liberals will promise not to cross some lines we draw if we compromise and allow them to cross others. Once across, they immediately go to work crossing the line they promised not to. It always happens. The media is now trying to “normalize” pedophilia. This isn’t going to end well.

By the way, the 14th Amendment doesn’t count American Indians as people if they aren’t taxed! Wait, what? They aren’t counted? They get no representation in Congress? What about equal protection of the law? Wait, why don’t they have to pay taxes? I don’t want to pay taxes either! Where is my equal protection of the law on that? Same amendment, folks.

The muslims of New Jersey have now grown sufficiently in population to stop yelling, “We’re the religion of peace!” and start yelling, “You will bend to the will of Allah!” By the liberal definition of equal protection of the law, these muslims can use the 14th Amendment to force the New Jersey School System to implement muslim holidays. Mark my words. This 14th Amendment baloney is just getting started. Equal protection of the law doesn’t mean that if we celebrate Christmas in America, we have to celebrate every religious holiday on earth or it’s a 14th Amendment violation. Does this example make it any clearer to anyone that Equal protection of the laws is not equal privileges based on different beliefs, feelings, wants, desires, or deviant impulses? Happy Ramadan!

AMP (Anna Maria Perez)

If you enjoyed this blog post, please share on Facebook, Twitter or one of the other choices below! Thank you!

Post navigation

38 comments

Reblogged this on shammyshrugged and commented:
My response to lil miss “know it all” who published this retarded article:
Your very first source was not only written in 1957, but it was the opinion of one newspaper columnist: David Lawrence expressed his views on states’ rights, small government, and a fiercely anticommunist foreign policy (Ref: http://www.usnews.com/…/articles/2008/05/16/david-lawrence-…). This is the outdated source I was referencing.
Yes, there is a 14th Amendment…”On July 28, 1868, the 14th amendment was declared, in a certificate of the Secretary of State, ratified by the necessary 28 of the 37 States, and became part of the supreme law of the land” (14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868) Ref: http://www.archives.gov/…/constitution_amendments_11-27.html).
If you repeal (remove from our Constitution – which can only be done through implementing additional “Acts” or bills passed by Congress, but never removed) you would be taking away your/our most precious right only found in the United States of America: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without DUE PROCESS OF LAW; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
So…Are you stupid or just a follower/sheep/bandwagon groupie like the majority of our nation?
I’m going to assess that you are stupid based off of this statement: It (14th Amendment) applies solely to the states. The 14th Amendment is designed to rip power from the states and give it to the federal government. This is why the states would not vote to ratify it and didn’t. It takes states to ratify an amendment to the Constitution: 75% of the States… unless Congress illegally stops them from voting.
You need to research and study the amendments before making such a fuss…here’s why you’re stupid: The 5th Amendment first introduced the DUE PROCESS CLAUSE, but it only applied to the Federal courts, not courts at the state level. “While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Ref: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment).
The only element holding our country together right now, is our constitution…and it’s being held by its last strings because people like you, who think you mean something to America, who spout off at the mouth with your bias opinions, who have given NOTHING to this country but your uneducated opinions and spoiled attitudes!
I HAVE written plenty of “somethings” in my 10 years in the Army, Ar Ramadi, IZ JAN07-APR08, and the 3 years as a DoD contractor, Helmand Province, Afg AUG2012-SEP2013. During my second deployment (Afghanistan), I developed and disseminated 300 intelligence summaries that weren’t just Tweeted…they were disseminated to friendly force bases throughout an entire Province for situational awareness so that soldiers on the ground had the best possible chance at defending themselves against local terrorists…not as entertainment or opinions because neither of those enrich lives.

What a load of incoherent rambling. No, the 5th Amendment covered the rights of the people everywhere, states included. Unlike the 1st Amendment it does not specify a restriction only on Congress. My blog post doesn’t argue the validity of the 14th Amendment. There are thousands of links all over the internet giving information about how it was ratified in an unconstitutional manner. If you were more curious you could find the information yourself.

I posted one link to information about the ratification of the 14th being unorthodox and it doesn’t matter what date the information was originally published.

The 14th Amendment has done nothing but perpetuate the usurpation of more power by the Federal Government. It has protected no one. Its misinterpretations have only served to create groups of so called protected classes that end up with “special rights,” not equal rights. I suggest you read my post again and try to understand it. You are a victim of the public education system and obviously have a lot to learn about the Constitution of the United States of America. Thank you for your service. Now please read the document you swore to protect and defend.

Also, never link Cornell if you want to be taken serious in a discussion about the Constitution. Any school that teaches case law (which is most law schools) has a total disregard for the Constitution. Article 3 enumerates no power to the judiciary to legislate. Now, calm down and have a good day.

States were forced to ratify. Ohio & New Jersey rescinded their ratifications and were ignored. There is nothing legitimate about the ratification of A14. Perhaps you should read the article on that topic that I linked and look into it further rather than accepting corruption as legitimate. http://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

With two rescindings, 14th still got enough states to ratify. I read the article. It failed to follow through on a state-by-state tally of ratifications — unlike the Wikipedia listing.

I’m not sure Lawrence’s odd 1957 column is authoritative in any way. I’ve heard all of those arguments, but no historian I know gives them credence as indicating any legal problem. No attorney I’ve found has ever successfully challenged the 14th Amendment on that basis. Even before courts hostile to the amendment.

Lawyers not challenging an Amendment doesn’t mean it’s legitimate. Besides, as I explained in my article, I leave that argument to others. My article was about the misinterpretation of 14A as it stands assuming it is legitimate. My not falling for its legitimacy like the rest of the sheep, not withstanding.

Lawyers failing to raise such an issue for their clients DOES mean it’s legitimate. If your issue were correct, and the amendment is faulty, a lawyer’s failure to raise that issue at trial in defense of a client is malpractice, suitable for disbarment.

There have been many 14th Amendment cases. If your issue was ever raised, it was quickly put down.

Lawyers rarely fight for the Constitution. There are hardly any lawyers that know the Constitution. Law schools teach unconstitutional case law. They are also taught the lies that I attempt to unveil. Almost no group of people I argue with about any part of the Constitution are more constitutionally illiterate than lawyers.

There is no such thing as “radical right-wing constitution stuff.” The Constitution is dead center in the U.S. To the right is anarchy. To the left is progressive, socialist, commie, fascism. That’s it. Simple. You don’t get to redefine it, because you moved the goal post.

The Goal Post is the Constitution. My article stands. I didn’t write it to debate it. If you’re willing to fall for misinterpretations that are spread via control of the public education system, I can’t help you. I can’t overpower your will power to ignore the truth. So I am done here.

The first real test of the 14th Amendment at the U.S. Supreme Court is usually thought to be the Slaughterhouse Cases in 1873. If there was a time to challenge the ratification of the 14th Amendment, that was it. And the cases involved people who thought the 14th Amendment a monstrosity to be opposed, so that would have been the party to do so.

You might have a quibble about total ratification numbers at the time the Secretary of State declared the 14th Amendment ratified, but with ample opportunities to contest that issue in the ensuing 148 years, no court has ever found significant flaw in the process.

37 states ratifying would have been ample prior to 1959. See the totals again.

You are so correct. The Mainstream media will mumble ‘unintended consequences’ but novel new forms of marriage are on the horizon. Muslims will continue to push for Sharia while Atheists erode Christian religious freedom. We need Patriots who look at the Constitution for themselves.

It’s very easy to become discouraged and feel like we’ve already reached the point of no return, but that’s why it’s so important that voices like yours are out there to help us get back into the fight. Thanks.